The Barack Obama Conspiracy

Updated on December 27, 2012

A World Of Potential

The first African American president, Barrack Obama has been what many would call an activist in the pursuit of peace. He has made epic claims to end the war on terror and bring our troops back home. He professed to the lowest civilian casualty rate of any war America has ever been a part of. All of those things are simply and sadly not true. His motive of change has not fully been understood and his failure to take a more active political role in many issues have led many to feel that our leader is nothing more than a post Bush puppet of capitalist America.

These assumptions may have true hardened merit, but they may also be silly ridicule with no bearing on truth whatsoever. The Obama conspiracy is the guise of a peaceful man who kills other men and does so simply by distorting the spoken word.

The unmanned drone has become the killing machine in the war on terror.

Is it justice?

Do you believe innocent people should die to kill one terrorist?

What Is Going On

One of the president's close friends was once quoted as stating "I don't think he would have thought that one of his main tasks would be to kill." From 2008 to 2012 our 44th president would be thrown into heated and often questionable battle on terror. Al-Qaeda, the prime target of this ongoing American aggression, would be a constant thorn in the side of peace, or at least that is what we are made to believe. Obama would act as much more than president of the free world in this war. he would take a much more active role. One that pitted him as judge, jury, and executioner. These titles seemed to fit him well as his level of remorse was anything but acceptable.

Obama, much like other heads of state and governing bodies would receive terrorist "baseball cards". These were basically small profiles that included pictures and several facts about suspected terror agents. Every week or so over 100 people, all members of the national security apparatus would meet to discuss these critical threats to the freedom of the American citizen. These meetings would take place in high security rooms with the most advanced technology. These meetings would be bug proof and hack proof and the topics would almost always end up on what would be known as "the hit list".

The meetings would set a new standard in modern warfare. Each target would be discussed in full detail. The focus would almost always turn to the use of the unmanned aircraft known as drones. These craft would be used to take out specific targets without the risk of losing soldiers. It would be Obama's signature that would OK the use of these drones to attack targets that posed specific threats to the U.S. infrastructure. No trial, no warning, just efficient, quick attacks made by drones sent by a president who claims to be a beacon of peace in a time of chaos.

Hub Resources

The Obama "Birther" Conspiracy TheoryThe Birther Conspiracy theories all have to pertain to President Obama's birth. Is there not proof that he was born in the United States? Is there any logical reasoning to this? Come find out legal precedents and proofs pertaining to the president's

Top 10 Conspiracy TheoriesSome of the best conspiracy theories are these top 10 conspiracy theories throughout the world, including JFK conspiracy theories, 911 conspiracy theories, Illuminati, assassinations, moon landing conspiracy theories, aliens, and more.

The Presidential ConspiracyThe office of President receives way to much credit and blame for the stetae of this country. It is the career politicians in congress that choose our candidates for us and tell us who to vote for and they should be held accountable.

The president

The Law

Obama does not have authority to pass the death sentence on any U.S. resident nor can he abolish it in the states where it is still prevalent, yet he signs the death warrant on people across the ocean on a regular basis. Sitting behind a table of his peers and co-workers he becomes the angel of death in a war on an idea that can't be defeated. His John Hancock sends drones to direct locations to specifically kill targets of concern.

When law enforcement find a hit list on an individual they are trained to treat this list as an act of terroristic threatening. That is a very serious charge by any standards.

In today's troubled society we see a lot of school kids facing these charges on what seems like a weekly basis. These are usually kids who suffer from bullying and neglect at home and in most cases the hit list was nothing more than a thought, one that had no real intention of ever being more than that.

When I attended school two of my friends were actually arrested and charged with terroristic threatening simply because a supposed hit list was circulating. No real evidence existed to prove the list was real but just the thought of someone having one was enough to merit law enforcement involvement and stern punishment to deter any other student from doing the same. Thanks to a wise lawyer and some help from students like myself the case was thrown out and proved to be nothing more than prejudice behavior on the part of the principal of the school.

Now on accusation alone someone may be arrested and trialed for terroristic threatening. My friends actually spent three nights in jail and had to have their integrity questioned. These men who sit in the highest chairs of government have hit lists and they don't just carter them around in their Meade notebooks next to their chemistry notes, or hide them deep in the recesses of their lockers. hey use them to assign targets to be eradicated across the globe. Each name that appears on these high profile hit list will have their fate determined by a president who proclaims to love the idea of peace. Is it justified? Is it even legal?

One could defend the actions of Barack Obama and the use of the drones as a means of warfare. It would appear the drones only kill terrorist or extremist who pose a threat to the U.S. After all according to a government report only 50 civilians have been killed by drone activity in 6 years. The other 2,400 to 2,800 were terrorists suspects or aiding terrorist activity.

But let's not forget other government reports such as the Warren report regarding JFK's untimely death and more recently the 9-11 Commission Report that failed to even acknowledge the 7th tower that fell without sustaining damage. Government reports exist to protect those in the government and create a smoke cloud for the general public to get lost in.

The Truth

As I have mentioned and we have learned time and time again government reports are misleading. Obama's "kill list" was leaked in May of 2012 to a New York Times reporter by an insider to the information. It revealed a nasty truth that Mr. Obama would surely have liked to have stayed hidden in some dark file behind Mount Rushmore.

It is the categorization of the dead that lead to such low figures as far as civilian deaths were concerned. According to the kill list documentation all men who are of the age for military service in and around the area of the attack of the drones are classified as insurgents, not civilians. This dance of words creates a false body count based on an obscured and distorted defining of people.

War correspondent Noor Behrem stated "Most of the victims I have witnessed have been women and children." This is a most disturbing revelation. Some war analysis expect the civilian death toll to be more akin to 15 civilian casualties for every one terrorist or extremist casualty. That is a very different number then Obama's supporters would like you to know. The sad reality is his daring play on words is shielding his war mongering attitude at a time when that kind of aggression needs subsided.

The List

The Department of Defense has assured anyone who does not pose or constitute a specific threat to the U.S. will never be placed on one of the hit lists. The grim part is what constitutes a specific threat?

Who is to say that this simple article will not be posed and treated as a threat to the U.S. and I will not be gunned down in the following days while working in my library with 12 kids seated nearby? What if that comment you made to a hospital security guard about Obama care was construed as propaganda? Maybe you might be a target for a drone fleet.

What high education government head makes the decision as to what a specific threat is anyways? If Barack Obama can give an execution order aimed at these specific threats does that also mean he can dictate what is a specific threat?

Conclusion

We currently find ourselves fighting a war on terror. Not a person, or even to any real degree group of persons. It is a war on an idea that we fight. For that war our actions have left countless civilians dead. They fall in the wake of an endless excursion against a foe that will always exist with or without action, with or without recourse and with or without guilt. To combat terror with further terror is to give into terror and admit it can not be fought nor defeated but only made worse by design. It is a waste of resources, time, and of course life to expect any intellectual foothold to be made in regards to a war on terror.

While I will say I am not against our president, I can say that if the bits of information in this article are true, and the pieces of this puzzle do in fact form a picture of a man who willingly signs the death certificate of innocent people to see one evil tyrant fall, than yes, I can openly say I do not approve of his actions. No innocent life should ever pay the burden of cost for a war this costly. No innocent person should ever fall to a war that will stretch until we are all grey and old. No innocent person should ever forfeit their life for a victory that can never be had.

Comments 5 comments

You say "To combat terror with further terror is to give into terror and admit it can not be fought nor defeated but only made worse by design".

I think I understand why you say this but it's kind of idealistic and unrealistic.

That's like saying don't fight back against people who are trying to destroy you. Talk to them instead.

But generally speaking if someone is determined to destroy you and you try to talk rather than fight back,,,you're going to be dead.

It's like when people in this country wanted the land of certain Indian tribes where gold or other resources were found.

It didn't matter if the Indians tried to talk them out of taking their land..armed force was used against them, because those who wanted the land didn't give a damn about what they had to say.

If people would have tried to talk Hitler or another tyrant in history out of attacking them...it probably would have been futile. So sometimes you have to fight violence with violence

but the issue is.. what's the motive for the violence...is it good or bad, righteous or not righteous, necessary or not necessary

lorddraven2000 3 years ago from Wheelwright KY Author

Exactly. We fight against terror, a villain that can have any face we deem fit to put on it. I understand where you are coming from. I am not saying don't fight back, I am saying look before you leap into a fight to see if that is the option that needs to be taken.